taking green job claims to task

I just read a blog article by Fortune magazine contributor Marc Gunther on Greenbiz.com about green jobs. But it's not what you'd think.

Instead of supporting the full expectations of the green job claims, which have been a major support point of renewable energy development and by extension global climate change action, he calls out inflated claims and makes a point to cite other projections from conservative and, as far as he can tell, middle of the road studies and articles. In fact, the article is called The Phony Green Jobs Debate.

In the article, he hits on two pet peeve points of my own--one, that simple slogans to define complex issues are a great way to lose the real focus and possibly lose the whole issue to prevailing opinion; and two, using over-inflated statistics to advance a cause even though the statistics were sufficient to prove the point to begin with, so even if the cause and predicted outcomes were right it didn't measure up and is still viewed as a failure.

To the first point, Marc calls out the Environmental Defense Fund's recent campaign claim of "Carbon Caps = Hard Hats." The most clear marketing message, however, is of course "Green Jobs." It's become what the renewable energy movement is about. As Gunther notes, it only took one soundbite from Harry and Louise in 1994, "If we let the government choose, we lose," to help kill the Clinton health plan. If people perceive that more green jobs is not what will happen, the entire movement towards renewable energy and global climate change solution is sunk.

To the second point, the projected future green job statistics used by the current administration are very optimistic, and studies from conservative think tanks are--gasp!--very pessimistic. Obviously. The problem, as Marc notes, is this:

"Let's get real: We can't predict oil prices 12 months out. Last spring, virtually no one anticipated the global financial crisis of last fall. And we are projecting the number of green jobs that will be created or lost on a state-by-state basis by a law that won’t take effect until 2012? Who are we kidding?"

In other words, they don't know--no one knows! Both and all sides are using business-as-usual justifications to make green job claims! Another Rube Goldberg machine at work. And yet action needs to be taken so we must act on what we can best back with knowledge.

Folks, let's not fight. There is no black and white here, just like there isn't anywhere else. We really need to focus on the true aim here, which is to create long term stability--energy, economic, military, social, all of the above, not political motives. Global climate change is a lot to digest, but just because we have to take one ton of medication to cure our consumptive disease doesn't mean that we can't take it on a regimented schedule. In fact, we probably can't take it all right now. But the sooner we do, the sooner we will feel better and we can forget about the nasty taste in our mouths.

I leave you with this quote from Marc about recent green jobs ads, which I completely agree with:

"They're like political campaign ads. They promise something for nothing. They treat the voters like children. They're emotional and not educational. And they're not helping to build a movement around climate change."

These ads, like political ads, are created by marketing firms marketing to real people. They think this is what you will respond to and they go out of their way to make them this way. Marketing is one machine I would love to see redesigned.